Next-Gen Xbox To Lack Backwards Compatibility?

An anonymous reader writes "Biz news site Gamesindustry.biz is reporting that Microsoft's Xbox 2 won't be backward compatible with games for the current Xbox, and quoting 'sources close to Microsoft's senior Xbox executives' explaining some of the thinking behind the decision. All very cloak and dagger, although I guess whoever told them would probably be in line for a firing if they found out... So, is Microsoft right or wrong on this one? Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"

Comments

Bad Move for MS

[(54)T-Dub]

In the article Microsoft claims that only 10% of the PS2 owners care about backwards compatibility. They are probably right, but what percentage of people who bought the ps2 in the first year cared about backwards compatibility. I think backwards compatibility makes it easy to justify the high cost of buying a console early if you know that you can still play the golden oldies and you won't have to fork over $50 a pop for each game, especially if your old console is starting to show some wear and tear. If MS wants to take an early lead they had better reconsider.
I thought this quote from the article summed it up nicely.

"We do expect Microsoft to launch its console first, perhaps as early as 2005," says Pachter. "Should it choose to do so without backward compatibility or significant third-party software support, we expect to see its first-mover advantage evaporate."

How many people, do you think, held out for the ps2 over the dreamcast because of backwards compatibility?

I wonder if this was the real reason that they dropped the backward compatibility:

Speculation about the backwards compatibility functionality has been rife since it emerged that Xbox 2 ... will have radically different hardware to the original system, with a non-x86 processor, no hard drive and an ATI, rather than NVIDIA, graphics chipset ...
It was widely believed, however, that Microsoft had retained a team of hardware emulation experts to work on the problem - although concerns over the viability of such an endeavour were voiced by some experts, especially regarding the company's ability to emulate the functions of the graphics unit in the Xbox without violating NVIDIA's intellectual property rights.

GameBoy!

[Kjuib]

That is what made the 2nd edition Gameboy such a hit... and the 3rd.. and 4th... and #th version of Gameboy because you could still play your old classic games on them.

Maybe twice in the last two years...

[slusich]

I think this is a feature more people want then will actually ever use. It'd be nice to have, but it wouldn't be a deciding factor for me in buying a new system.

Foot, meet bullet

[Dark Paladin]

Backwards Compatibility?

Have we ever used the backwards compatibility on the PS2? Does a bear crap in the woods? (For the sarcasm impaired, that's "yes".)

I've got a collection of about 60 PSOne disks, from "Resident Evil" through "Final Fantasy" looping into "Dance Dance Revolution" and plenty of others I haven't even gotten to yet. And I've got quite a few PS2 games as well (and to be fair, naturally I have a Gamecube and Xbox).

I'll be honest: I think the Xbox 2 has shot themselves in the foot, because now it's not a 3 way battle, it's a 4 way battle between the Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, and Xbox2.

Sony made a brilliant move when they made the PS2 backwards compatible, and have stated they plan to have PSOne games all they way until 2008 (as I seem to recall). People who are cheap can still get a PSOne for about $79-$100, and games for around $20-$30 (infrequently, but it still happens even today). Sony gets a cut off of those games.

Now, you look at the PS2. If you want just one PS2 game, the choice is pretty damned easy: no additional space needed in your room, same connectors even! Just junk that old PSOne and go PS2, and you can play all your old games and those "few" PS2 games you're thinking about. And once you're in, over the years it gets harder to go back to the old stuff.

With the Xbox, that choice is no longer there. I have Xbox games I like (though to be honest, I've never gotten into Halo. Go figure.). Now when the Xbox2 comes out, I'm going to be looking at it and say "Well, I could buy it now for that 1 game I must have, but eh - I'll wait until they build up a library that I care about."

Yes, there will be "must have" games upon launch, but if comes down to space (already at a premium with 3 consoles), or cost (another $299 for one or two games), people will look at the backwards compatible PS3 (and, if the rumors of the Gamecube 2 or whatever are correct) with a lot more favor.

Granted, in the past there was no backwards compatibility (NES -> SNES -> N64), but the game market has learned a valuable lesson.

There will be Xbox 2 games that I'll want eventually that will make it worth the purchase price, but I'm willing to bet that initial sales will be "electronics enthusiasts only" until a larger library gets built up.

As the article mentions, it will certainly eat into the "First Mover" advantage the Xbox Next is hoping to gain. Even when the PS2 came out, there were still good upcoming PSOne games to look forward to. So unless Microsoft does what they usually do and remove all Xbox One games from the shelves (example: when Office XP comes to stores, Office 2000 becomes impossible to find, etc), or keeping Live out of the hands of anyone but Xbox Next owners, they'll find the current base slow to pick up.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Re:Foot, meet bullet

[stratjakt]

And yet, you have a GameCube, even though it wasn't backwards compatible with N64, which wasn't compatible with SNES, which wasn't compatible with NES..

Backwards compatibility is nice, but not if it compromises the new features of the machine.

I'd rather have a cutting edge console than something that'd been watered down so it can still run old stuff.

There were a lot of disgruntled PS2 early adopters who found its low-res graphics (an artifact from PSX days) to be less-than-impressive. In fact, the first run of games didn't exactly blow away the PSX versions. There was also much ado about the handful of PSX games that were incompatible. It gave them an early black eye.

I'll buy an Xbox 2 for the same reason I've bought any other console: It has some kick-ass games that i want to play. If all it had going for it was compatibility (ie; PS2 for the first year), it'll sit on the shelves.

Compatibility is nice, but not a selling point by itself.

Re:Foot, meet bullet

[king-manic]

Did you take a hammer to your Playstation? They would still be quite playable on that box.

Electronics don't live forever. They die. My PS1 lost the baring in the cd tray so it needs to have tape to hold the cd down. And it's now not loading some games because the electric motor on the cd player is going. i'm glad I have a PS2 to play my libraary of PS1 games.

If Xbox has good launch games, it will sell because gamers want to play games and many want to be "first on the block."

For this, MS has to convince third party developers that the machien has enough install base to make said games. So it's a catch 22. To get a higher install base, you must sell more units, to sell more units you must get the good games, to get the good games you have to have a large install base.....

In short, I consider backward compatibility one of those things that everyone talks about being important despite the fact that, outside the GBA and unsuccessful Atari consoles, it's only happened once. I consider the logic that backward compatibility sells consoles to be faulty since if one wants to play the old games the old console can be had on the cheap (as others have pointed out, the Xbox will almost certainly be $100 when Xbox 2 streets).

It's been shown that in that awkward first few months when no games comes out for a console, that backward compatability helps sell your console. It's effect can't be measured. Because the whole set of examples is too small. PS2 has it, SNEs didn't. Atari had it (and was very successful until shortly before the crash int he 80's). GB has it. TG16 had it. Genesis had it (in a way). The arguement is that it provides a smoother transition between consoles and it provides a easy way to maintain your current investment in older games.

Xbox 2 is pretty far away. but basing ti on past performance is a good indicator. SMS was #2 and so was the Genesis. NES did well makign $$$ and so did the SNES did really well making mad $$$ and the N64 made $$ and Gc made money. PS1 was a wild success making mad $$$, PS2 was a wild success making mad $$$, PS3 will problably be successful. Xbox was a mild success that loese money, Xbox 2 will also be a mild success that loses money.

Re:Foot, meet bullet

[Chazmyrr]

It helps that the gamecube has been retailing for $99 for a while. At that price point it starts to look like a possiblity once 8-10 must have games are in the bargain bin for $25. With accessories (2nd controller, memory cards), you're looking at about a $15 premium per game. So you end up spending about $10 less than original retail for each of the must have games.

Once the X-Box drops below $100 I might consider it. It's going to be a tough sell though. Right now there are only 5 or 6 X-Box exclusives that I'd be interested in. With the X-Box 2 lacking backward compatibility, I'll probably pass over the current X-Box and wait to see if the X-Box 2 hits an attractive price point and has a bunch of killer exclusives.

In contrast, I bought a PS2 launch day. I already had 50-60 PS1 games. It played DVDs out of the box, so I didn't have to buy another DVD player for the second TV. DVD players at the time were still running around $200. I looked at it as getting a console for less than $100 after trading in my PS1. The launch titles were mostly crap, but it didn't matter. I had some PS1 games I hadn't finished yet and some high profile developers had already committed to releasing some high profile games on the PS2. The PS2 was out for quite a while in Japan before it was launched here. We already knew some cool stuff was coming our way once it got localized. Microsoft doesn't have that advantage.

That sucks

[ayf6]

I am a avid xbox gamer and would consider an upgrade if I could play my old games on the xbox2. I also would have loved to see a way to transfer the saved settings from my xbox->xbox2 perhaps over the ethernet cable but I guess that will never happen either. This is a very sad article to read given how superior the xbox is to the PS2 for graphic and sound quality. The xbox was truely an inovative game console.

Re:That sucks

[AdrainB]

They really messed up when they came up with the Windows Media Edition instead of making that the killer app for the X-Box. I've chipped my X-Box and run X-Box Media Center on it. To do the same thing with Windows Media Edition would cost $2000.

Re:That sucks

[OrenWolf]

Actually no, it wasn't, I think I'd give WebTV that title.. or even the Commodore CDTV (or hell, ANY Amiga) both which predate by a wide margin.

Then again, perhaps you believe that all those researchers and folk at Microsoft waking up one day and going "Gee.. if only people could put their PC's in the *living room!*" as /innovation/..

More speculation

[stratjakt]

Tomorrow $SOME_OTHER_GAME_SITE will report that it will include backwards compatibility, and compatibility with Sega Saturn and Apple Pippin!

It was actually widely speculated that Xbox would play Dreamcast games. Some asshat at $TOP_GAMER_NEWZ_SITE noticed that MSFT and Sega were working together, and jumped to a huge conclusion. Of course, they were working to hammer out marketing deals for Sega games on the Xbox platform.

Blah. Wait for official word, I hate speculation.

It'll probably be compatible. Or else it won't be called Xbox at all, they'd abandon and start a whole new "brand". But with Xbox just starting to pick up a good head of steam, they'd be foolish to kill compatibility on any "Xbox 2" at this point.

So it could be a PS2-PSX thing, or a SNES-N64 thing. Who knows.

Re:More speculation

[gl4ss]

huh, what makes you think that just retaining the same name means that it will be compatible? they have spent huge amount of money on XBOX name, just the for the name, and they don't intend to flush it down the toilet.

it would be foolish on some levels but they just might think it's still the better business move(who knows what sacrifices they would have to do to get the games running on not only different archicture cpu but with different graphics chip manufacturer as well, think of the shaders and such). maybe they just don't want it to run the old games crappily, because that would hurt the new machine even more. "dude, that box suxx so bad halo is flakey on it, just buy the old better xbox".

Re:Why I Went With PS2

[zeotherm]

On further thought and comparison... backwards compatibility is like airbags in a car, while they are not often used, you are glad to have them when you want/need them.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Rick the Red]

emulation... would be far more worth it just for a base of titles.

Let's put it this way: If the Xbox2 won't play my Xbox1 games, requiring me to keep both an Xbox1 and Xbox2 connected to my TV, then why should I buy an Xbox2? I'm free to buy any other console that won't play my Xbox1 games: PS3, GameSphere, whatever -- even a PS2, which will be like free by then and have about 100 times more titles.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[pegr]

This is THE lesson they learned from the PC. While backward compatability severely limited the potential of the PC, it was absolutely required to maintain continuity (check OS/2 sales for reference). The game market is different. If you really need a box for your old XBox games, get an XBox (for prolly >$100 by then).

This will cause some consumer backlash, however. Maybe it will affect sales, maybe it won't.... Since when has the game (or PC, for that matter) market been directed by technical truth rather than marketing FUD?

Hey! Now there is poetic justice! Good luck, BillyBoy! ;)

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[stratjakt]

Blah blah controller blah blah

People with adult sized hands, like myself, preferred the XBox original controller, or the Dreamcast controller, and find PS2 and Gamecube's controllers awkward.

Perhaps the market MSFT is after is; grown-up folks with money.

The sound of silence

[shoptroll]

If you listen carefully, you can hear all the Halo fanboys scream in agony...

Backwards compatibility makes a big difference when a system is starting out. I remember telling my parents about each new system, and the first thing they'd ask was "Does it play the old games?".

This is great because it's proving my new theory that Microsoft has not learned from the mistakes that every other company has done in the past. Bad controller design, no "mascot" or established franchise, and now kicking backwards compatibility.

The PS2 roared out of the gates, because even though it had a small launch library, it didn't matter cause there were already 600+ games on the market that it could use. Add in DVD playback and it's no wonder the thing did so well. Same principle applies for Nintendo's GB series. The DS will work too cause it plays GBA games.

I guess this just proves how ready Bill is to profit off the XBox.

The Wisdom of Slashdot

[VividU]

For a good laugh, go back and read some of the early postings and comments on Slashdot regarding the Xbox.

They were about as wrong as it gets.

The Xbox team has proved that they know what their doing. They have earned my trust.

Backward compatability is nice, but I could care less if its there or not. If the Xbox and Live are any indication, the second generation is gonna rock hard and non-ideological gamers will gravitate towards it just like they did with the Xbox.

Anyone used PS2 Backward Compatibility?

[finkployd]

I play probably as much if not more PS1 games on my PS2. Why? They are cheaper, and they do not get any less fun because some new game comes out with less gameplay and more realistic cinematic scenes.

Seriously, There are only a couple of PS2 games I really like (GTA3, FFX, GT3, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid 2, and oddly enough, Rygar). There are hundreds of good PS1 games out there, and you don't have to drop $50 to get them.

I think I can safely say I wouldn't have bought the PS2 if it did not play PS1 games (the DVD player was also a factor, since I dod not want to have to buy another DVD player for my room.

Finkployd

10% Might Not Be That Far Off

[kannibal_klown]

I hate to say it, but in the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, Microsoft might be right about the 10% figure.

Sure, when the PS2 first came out, I'm sure like 50% of the users bought it for that reason "hey, it can run my old games, and new games too!!!"

But the PS2 has been out for how long now? It's the oldest system out there that's still getting games developed for it. It's been around for-flipping-ever.

I personally doubt too many people now-a-days see the original PS games as much of anything to buy (ecept as stocking stuffers). And most probably don't give the compatibility a second though. This might balance out the early figures to something really low (maybe not 10%, but like 15% or 20%).

It all comes down to support. Do you make a conviluted system that can do new and advanced stuff while supporting something old or different? Or do you focus all of your efforts into making something that plays the new stuff well.

It's kind of (KIND OF) like what Apple did. They wiped the slate clean (or clean-ish) when they went with OS X. It was a new architecture, something entirely different. And while they support some OX Classic stuff, it's sort of a new thing all together.

Personally, I won't mind so much. Sure, it'll take up more room having the 2 systems, but I have a switch-box and plenty of inputs available.

I'd rather they try to get the XBOX 2 to be streamlined and run well then have it emulate the XBOX 1.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Jtheletter]

apparently one of the small minority of people that believed the XBox controller to be clunky and uncomfortable (in fact caused serious cramping after short use)

Are you talking about the original controller? If so then I think it's safe to say the majority of gamers (read as: humans with human-sized hands) agree it was a POS, but the scaled down s-controller is perfectly comfortable.

In my experience, having lived with 5 roomates with varying console preferences and having both a PS2 and an Xbox on the same communal tv, the PS2 users cause their hands to cramp up using the xbox because they insist on keeping their fingers in the L1L2 R1R2 positions when those buttons don't exist on the xbox controller. If you relax your hands and approach it as a different controller - not as a poorly designed PS2 contoller - then there shouldn't be any trouble at all.

One PS1 Game to Rule Them All...

[Vandil X]

Castlevania - Symphony of the Night.

Reason alone to use the PS2's backwards compatability.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[foidulus]

If you make your console backwards compatible, it helps your consumers out by a) reducing the amount of space they have to dedicate in their entertainment center for consoles and b) reduces the rats nest of cables that is bound to be connected to said TV. Plus, the original X-Box isn't very "stackable"
Blech! I'll just keep my little gamecube.

Re:Used it?

[swerk]

I bought my PS2 basically as a DVD player that also would play bargain-bin RPGs, e.g. all those PS1 titles I missed out on before. Since then I've bought a few PS2 titles, but most of my playstation library is made up of cheap old PS1 games.

Never having had a PS1, backwards compatibility on the PS2 was a big deal for me, it was like getting two systems in one. I don't have an x-box, and I'm not likely to get the next one of that line either but the ability to play a bargain-bin Panzer Dragoon Orta or Halo certainly would be appealing.

Game Boy has been the best example of backwards compatibility; the fanciest GBA SP of today and even the dual-screened Gameboy of the future will still play the original circa-1988 games. Granted, the Game Boy evolved in small increments, but apart from HDTV resolution and more megahertz, what's the next x-box going to do that the current one doesn't?

Even for folks that don't actually take advantage of a system's backwards compatibility, it's a strong selling point. The device seems more universal. AMD's x86-64 is cool for some of the same reasons. It's the new hotness, but the old and busted stuff still works on it.

Super Secret Leaks

[Stormcrow309]

Anyone ever thought that these 'super secret leaks' are actually feeling out the market without looking like they are feeling out the market? It is a standard IT strategy. Let out a rumor that X is about to happen and see who screams. If no one made noise about it, I would bet highly that xbox 2 would NOT be compatable.

Xbox vs. Playstation 1

[daveo0331]

When I bought my Playstation 2, I didn't particularly care about backwards compatibility. Why not? Because I already had a PS 1. This is relevant because the current installed base of Xboxes is a lot less than what the installed base of Playstations was when PS2 came out -- which means there's more people that could benefit from Xbox 2 backwards compatibility than were able to benefit from Playstation 2 backwards compatibility. I would be more inclined to by an Xbox 2 if I knew that by buying one, I could also play all the Xbox games that I can't play now because I don't have an Xbox.

Re:Xbox vs. Playstation 1

[jest3r]

my feeling is backwards compatibility on a consol is kind of overrated. First of all as the parent thread states if you OWN gen1 games you probably own a gen1 consol.

More importantly old games look and feel their age when played on a new consol ... and basically have been played to death anyways .. which is why you buy the new consol in the first place. Yaya there are a few people who prefer the odd old game .. but like the parent says .. play it on your old consol.

Why bother making something backwards compatible when noone is going to be purchasing the old games anyways ... the old games look like garbage ... and most people who have the old games already own the old consol.

the point of a new console is a massive leap forward in technology to open the door for exciting new games.

Yeah me too, funny that...

[Simon Carr]

In fact anyone I've spoken to with a PS2 has brought up the backwards compatability thing. It was even one of my considerations when I got mine, and I didn't have any PS1 titles.. I just knew they'd be out there. Granted, since I bought it I've only taken in 3 or 4 PS1 titles, but I still consider it an advantage. When (I guess it's when now) I buy a PS3, backwards compatability with my PS2 games will be one of the selling points since I've invested $TooMuch on my game library.

If I had an XBox, I wouldn't want to have two devices milling about in my entertainment center, especially two devices the size of XBoxes. And then, on down the line, will Live be an Xbox2 only service? If so what happens to everyone who likes playing the original Halo online?

Funnily enough MS seems to think it can afford to do research that supports what it wants to believe is true. I guess technically they -can- afford to, but not if they want to make money on any future ventures. It's a company wide problem from what I can see that needs to be solved.

And yeah the XBox default controllers are huge.

Re:Yeah me too, funny that...

[demi]

It's also interesting that there's been a lot of recent discussion about the problems people have playing classic games on new PCs: for example, Tomb Raider, the original is a great game but it's hard (I hear) to get playing on a new PC. I love the fact I can just pop the game in my PS2 and play it, and without the disadvantages of keeping the old console around.

Plus, you know, things break. I really hope the PS3 has PS2 and PS1 emulation so I can continue to play all my games, even the old one, with one console. Without this support, even if you can keep the old consoles around they eventually break and it's not the same as if there is current support for the platform.

Well I dunno

[Sycraft-fu]

History seems to be on their side. As far as I know, the PS2 is the ONLY popular console ever to be backward compatible. I mean let's run down the big successes console wise:

Atari 2600: First gen.

NES: First gen.
SNES: Planned to be backward compatible, not implemented in release.
N64: Not backward compatible.
Gamecube: Not backward compatible.

SMS: First gen.
Genesis: Not backward compatible.

PS1: First gen.
PS2: Backward compatible.

That's all of the most successful consoles I can think of. Of those, only ONE was backward compatible. Even most of the lesser consoles were not compatible with anything else.

Saturn: Not backward compatible.
Dreamcast: Not backward compatible.
Neo Geo: First (and only) gen.
Jaguar: Not backward compatible.

Now maybe backward compatibility is now huge, amybe now that Sony has started it, it is the one thing that no one will live without. That, however, remains unproven. History indicates that non-backward compatible consoles can be successful. Current evidence seems to support this too. Despite competition from the PS2 and X-box, and lots of raging on graphics quality, the GameCube has done quite well for itself.

Re:Well I dunno

[evilWurst]

You forgot one massively popular series of machines that's been backwards compatible from the start: the Gameboy.

Re:Well I dunno

[jared_hanson]

You have correctly pointed out that history is on their side. However, the present is radically different that the past. Sony sucessfully proved that backwards compatibility can be done, and consumers welcomed it. This means that consumers will most likely expect it in the future. Sony changed the playing field, and it is Sony that Microsoft needs to contend with. They can't pull their usual shit over on the customers when better, market-leading alternatives exist.

The other factor, I believe is the disc based format. Speaking only of Nintendo (I'm not familiar with the others), they kept cartridge based consoles right up to the Gamecube. Those are seen more of as hardware rather than software, and people don't expect as stringent compatibility reqirements with those. However, discs are a different issue. Most mainstream discs (CDs, DVDs) are backwards compatible with newer players. CDs can be played in DVD players, for example. The new DVD standard (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD) groups all have hardware backwards compatibility on their priority lists.

As such, I think a lot of XBOX customers are going to be dissapointed with this move. I didn't own a PS1, but baught a PS2 because they did a quality job with backwards compatibility, leaning me to trust them. I don't own an XBOX, and am not likely to pick up an XBOX Next if they don't demonstrate any reason for my doing so. Sony, for instance, won't obsolete my game library investment, but Microsoft wants to do exactly that. Why should I give Microsoft my money then, if they won't value what I have given them?

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[autopr0n]

MS is changing the architecture, the design, and the graphics chip (ATI, no HD, and non-Intel) which will obviously force emulation (which, according to the article, was being planned)

Err... how can you "emulate" a hard drive, if you don't have one?

No Backwards Compatibility = No Sale

[kooshvt]

I lost interest in console games years ago when Nintendo failed to support backwards compatibility. The crappy original console they made would eventually start to fail reading games. After buying a few of those I refused to go to a new console from them if it did not support playing the old games. I did eventually get back into console gaming with the original PlayStation. I then bought the PS2 when it came out. I can replace the old beat up Playstaions I have and not have to lose the ability to play the games. I love it. I bought an X-box as well but if the are not going to support backwards compatibility looks like I will not be buying X-Box2. I never bought another Nintendo system after the original. Hell, my Atari 5200 had an adaptor to allow me to play my Atari 2600 games.

Backwards compatability.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason I could convice my wife to let me get a PS2 was that we could buy all those dirt-cheap PS1 games to play on it.
Only bad thing is when I played one of those games nearly to the end and then it froze I got told by tech-support that they couldn't do anything about it as it wasn't designed to do that, it was just an extra feature.

True or not

[Further82]

Whether this story turns out to be true or false, the overall impression I am getting is that MS is taking a step backwards with their next console. The original Xbox was the apitamy of console inovation (at least I thought so). In all the areas that the PS2 let us down, the Xbox came to the rescue; but not only did it have supiror graphics, it excelled in other ways first and foremost the inclusion of a hard disk. It's unfortunate that few games used it to their advantage, but its still a good idea. Xbox also fully supported Dolby Digital 5.1 and HDTV, and it came with a built in ethernet card (tripped up only by the fact that Xbox Live took 2 years to come out). Even the little controler cord break away thingies were pretty damn cool. I think the thing is so popular with hardcore gamers (other than the hacking potential) is because it packed so many good ideas in one box, which made it easier to ignore that the thing was from Microsoft and that it did not have the library that PS2 did.

But what of Xbox2, from the rumors at least, it seems nothing more than a box with better graphics. Where's the inovation? I have not heard any good new ideas. Granted I have not heard any from Sony or Nintendo either, but considering MS wants to release Xbox2 before Sony releases PS3, you'd think we'd be hearing somthing about the unit that is actully impressive.

Sadly, if it is just a box with better graphics, and its released before PS3, it will suffer the same fate as Dreamcast (which was a great console, better than the PS2 in my opinion). People will wait for PS3 because there will be no good reason to get an Xbox, especily since the PS3 will probably have the same or better graphics (as is the assumption with any console that is released later).

Microsoft has shown that they can innovate when faced with an uphill battle (browser wars), so I hold out hope that at least some of these rumors are wrong and Microsoft has a killer secret that we dont know of yet that will make the Xbox2 seem much more desierable.

Normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of the 10 gaming machines I own (not including PC). Only 2 are backwards compatable. GBA and PS2. So why is it such a surprise that the next Xbox may not be?

Backwards compatibility not an issue...

[dsouth]

OK, I'll bite.

I own a PS2 and have never used the backwards compatibility features. Since I did not own a PSOne prior to the PS2, I do not have a large library of PS1 games lying around. Though I've occasionally thought of picking up one of the bargain bin PS1 games, I've never done so -- There are plenty of good PS2 games I haven't played, not to mention that I'd also need to pick up a PS1 mem card in order to play the older games.

I'm sure that there are people who had large libraries of PS1 games that they didn't part with, but does this really apply to XBox? The PS1 had a longer, more popular run than the XBox will have had. There are plenty of "classic" PS1 games worth owning (Final Fantasy series, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil), how many XBox Games fall into that category?

If...

[qtone42]

...the reason to avoid backward compatability is actually to accomodate a major change in archetecture which improves the quality of the games, I'm all for it.
If it is the coice between Dazzling Graphics and superior realism and gameplay, fine.

In other words, if it is the new hotness, dump the old-and-busted.

I am, however, not holding my breath

--QTone42
Gay or French? No, just Gay, thank you.

It's just a bloody name

[Blue Stone]

Couldn't they just solve the problem of non-backward compatibility by simply releasing it as something other than the next X-Box?

Since it's so radically different in its design, what's the point of re-using the name of a console with which it's incompatible?
By completely ruling-out compatibility, don't they just eliminate all of the gain that association with the X-Box name gives them?

Re:It's just a bloody name

[The-Bus]

To wit:

• Nintendo Entertainment System
  
• Super Nintendo Entertainment System
  
• Nintendo 64
  
• Nintendo GameCube (different media, natch)
  

• Sega CD
  
• Sega Saturn
  
• Sega Dreamcast
  

I don't think ANYONE expected backwards compatibility, and it hasn't really been an industry standard. Playstation/Playstation 2 was THE major exception in U.S. console gaming.
Nintendo has actually made it a business model to resell and repackage old games. Super Mario Bros. for the NES has been re-released a number of times for many systems, including the SNES and the Game Boy Advance/SP. Names are used for branding. People will associate it with something... whether it be cool graphics, Halo, XBox Live, etc. Name association may mean backwards compatibility to some, but only if you started playing during the Playstation era.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Weirdofreak]

...Which explains why you can't tell any of the buttons apart from the others.

That's the thing I like most about the 'Cube controller. You always know which button your thumb is on, and you can always find whichever button you want from there. If you have large thumbs it'll be quite easy to press more than one at a time, but I don't get that often, and usually it doesn't matter when I do.

I find it difficult to remember which button is where on the PS2, causing problems when I first start to play a game, I get cramp if I try to keep one finger trained on each shoulder button and if I try one betwen two I'm very innacurate. I need to look at the controller to find start and analouge, and the face buttons are too far apart for my liking.

The Xbox controller (which I haven't used for a while, so bear with me) has 6 'main' buttons, all of which feel exactly the same and all of which require a single thumb between them, making it exceedingly hard to find the right button. I have my finger on one button, and when I need to press another, I have to consciously think about where my thumb goes if I'm to have much chance of hitting the right one, and then consciously move it back so that I get it right next time as well. The buttons between the control sticks, whatever they're called, suffer from the same problem as the PS2.

The controller not feeling right in my hand I can cope with. I can cope with not being able to get the control stick straight forwards (which really bugs me). I can cope with having to stop moving to press the control sticks down. I just can't cope with a layout that seems to change every few seconds and which has tiny buttons that need a thumbnail and plenty of hand/eye co-ordination to push. The 'Cube doesn't need hand-eye co-ordination, or even active participation. It just needs a fairly average sense of touch. Telling a large circle from a small circle is easy, telling one dome from another dome less than a centimetre away isn't.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"

Yes, my son plays older PS2 games all the time.
I've never purchased an Xbox and probably never will and this is just another good reason not to.
I can purchase an older PS2 game for next to nothing that keeps him satisfied for hours on end.

Re:Used it?

[Alsee]

I don't own a PS1 or PS2.

I for one would be VASTLY more likely to buy a PS3 if it means I can play all the PS1 and PS2 titles as well.

-

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gameboy. Still has it (DS).

XBOX: Test platform for "secure computing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my theory that the XBOX is Microsoft's test platform for "secure computing". It only runs games, so nobody's going to be running mission-critical applications on it. If this is true, then the XBOX-2 would be a second attempt at a "secure" system, and backward compatibility is of little concern.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[poot_rootbeer]

While backward compatability severely limited the potential of the PC, it was absolutely required to maintain continuity (check OS/2 sales for reference).

OS/2 seems to be a pretty poor example, as it was capable of running most legacy DOS software and 16-bit Windows software as well as, if not better than, Microsoft's original operating systems.

It was only when development began for Win95 and NT's 32-bit codebases -- which differed from what came before and from OS/2 -- that OS/2 began to lose marketshare.

OS/2 failed because of a lack of lateral compatibility, not backward.

You know, you can still use your Xbox

[realmolo]

There's nothing stopping you from keeping your original Xbox when the Xbox 2 comes out.

Use that to play your old games.

The Xbox isn't a Playstation. There aren't that many games, really (and only about 20 or so are GOOD), and backwards comptability isn't going to really expand it's game library that much.

My feeling about backwards comptability is this: If it costs almost nothing to add to the console (which was the case with the PS2), then great. But if it's going to take major re-engineering that will drive the price up...

Well, if the price is going to go up, I'd rather have it be because the console is being made more powerful. Not because of backwards compatability hacks.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Teppy]

If leveraging a previous library works, then maybe they should make the XBox 2 backwards compatible with the Playstation 2

10% of PS2 users interested in backwards compat...

[Daniel Wood]

"According to a source close to the project, internal Microsoft figures suggest that only 10 per cent of PlayStation 2 purchasers were interested in the console's ability to play titles developed for the original PlayStation."

So let me get this straight if only 10% of PS2 owners wanted backwards compatability, that is what? 7 MILLION users!!! Count 'em, seven million. That is over 50% of the XBox userbase by numbers sold. That is nothing to sneeze at. I was a bit excited about XBOX2, since I thought it would have a chance by doing backwards compatability. But I think that Sony will have a XBox Live competitor on the PS3, if it does, I won't even consider an XBOX2.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Lost Engineer]

I have smaller hands than you prolly, but fortunately for the both of us there are 2 different sized Xbox controllers: here and here .

This is a great feature IMHO. Different sizes without having to resort to 3rd party controllers of dubious quality.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[nukem1999]

That's the thing I like most about the 'Cube controller. You always know which button your thumb is on, and you can always find whichever button you want from there.
Except for the "z" button. I have often found myself playing a game, thinking to myself "How the hell did I do that before?", playing with the real buttons for awhile, moving back and forth between areas to see if there was something else I missed, and then I remember there's that tiny shoulder-esque button that's hard to either see or feel if you're not looking for it
>_

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[MoonBuggy]

I moved from the short lived Sega Dreamcast to the Xbox and I absolutely love the Xbox controller - it doesn't force me to squish up my hands like the tiny PS2 pad and it has nice high-travel triggers so you can actually make use of the analog sensitivity (I don't care if the R and L buttons on the PS2 have 4 billion levels of pressure if there's only enough travel to have about 3 different levels). The control sticks are well placed for where the thumbs naturally extend to rather than forcing them to be permenantly and uncomfortably bent downwards. Finally, your fingers sit nicely in the grooves in the back rather than wrapping right around and putting stress on your knuckles.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Xaroth]

Atari's 7800 was fully backwards compatible with the 2600 (VCS). The gameboy color, gameboy advance, and now gameboy DS are all fully backwards compatible with the original gameboy.

Add-ons have been made for several consoles to allow for backwards compatibility, including the Genesis->SMS.

Of course, it's a bit of a gamble. The GBA probably wouldn't have done nearly so well if it hadn't kept GB compatibility, nor would the PS2 have had nearly as much initial demand without it, but it certainly didn't do much to save the 7800.

Come to think of it, the 7800 and the XBOX are remarkably similar in one other respect - both had atrocious controllers. ;)

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[boarder8925]

How many of you Slashdotters have used the backwards compatibility on PlayStation 2s?

I'm one of them. After my PlayStation broke, I was very grateful for the backwards compatibility.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Tsiangkun]

Also, backwards compatible means I can trade in my old console when I get a new one. It reduces the cost of the purchase, and I don't loose any of the games I bought for the old system.

Using Backwards Compatiblity

[pyrrhonist]

Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?

YES! In fact, I have used it for several games, for the following reasons:

• It just flat out took me a long time to finish the game (Final Fantasy series, MGS VR Missions), because I got distracted with other games/work/bright lights
• The game has a fun head-to-head mode (Soul Blade, Syphon Filter II)
• The game is fun to play more than once (MGS, Syphon Filter)
• I keep the game around for nostalgic purposes (Doom, Warhawk, Original demo disks)
• The game is only available for the PSOne (Final Fantasy IV-VIII)

It's good to be able to sell the old hardware, but keep the games you like to play for use with the new hardware.

BTW, the PS2 can speed up disk access and perform smoothing on some PS1 games, which is kind of neat.

Re:Backwards compatability a bane for the company?

[king-manic]

History has shown us ESPECIALLY with the PS2 that backwards compatability does not bring in extra money for the company. Frequently those who plan to play the older games do so because they are cheep and still run on the older system

they still make money on the older Ps1 games. the PS2 is a smash hit. So I don't really know how thats an exampel of it not making them any money. If your into economy games (greatest hits ect..) it's unlikly you'd buy the expensive stuff anyway so yoru just wringing the optimal amoutn of profit formt he amrket.. it doesn't seem like their undercutting themselves. No more so then the celerons undercut the P4's.

XBOX has pretty good protection as far as copy protection is concerned...don't flame me saying anything different because I do know what's possible with the XBOX and its DVD games

Far be it for me (a chronic typoist) to critisize yrou grammar.. but what are you saying? You have some deep insight as to how copying games is harder for the xbox? Since I know most of my friends do it... it doesn't seem that hard. Get game. Press copy. Play game.

games that finally cross the barrier of consoles

another no-sequiter. How did it cross barriers? by being #3? by losing money? does it play Gc games ? does it play PS2 games?

Backwards compatibility sells older games. which you still profit from.

Microsoft business model versus the game console

[abb3w]

Maybe no-one was reading last week when there was another insightful piece by Joel Spolsky, or maybe everyone's forgotten it:

Microsoft grew up during the 1980s and 1990s, when the growth in personal computers was so dramatic that every year there were more new computers sold than the entire installed base. That meant that if you made a product that only worked on new computers, within a year or two it could take over the world even if nobody switched to your product. [...] So in many ways Microsoft never needed to learn how to get an installed base to switch from product N to product N+1.

Or, in other words, Microsoft (or rather, the prevailing faction Joel called the MSDN camp) just really doesn't quite get the idea of "backward compatibility". So, if it's correct to infer that the current evidence implies that the market is saturating, then Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot badly.

Of course, some of the market for XBox2 will be for newcomers: while Mumsy and Dadzy may not be willing to by an X-unit for Junior at age 10, they may be more willing (or more tired of the whining) by age 15-- and Junior may have gotten a larger allowance. On the other hand, not all Xbox purchasers are in the teen demographic.

There may be some interesting conceptual connections to M$/RIAA/MPAA attitudes on intellectual property law-- no, you can't play PacMan/Shreck/Bethoven's Fifth for your unit N on your Unit N+1, you have to buy A WHOLE NEW COPY! And for EVERY OTHER THING you have a copy of! Wheee! This, however, is not likely to make consumers with stagnant disposable incomes enraptured of the platform. (Especially given the outsourcing impact of globablization on that disposable income.) Built in obsolescene is one thing; this, however, has the potential for going way too far way too fast.

Microsoft is making a huge mistake, here's why

[TrekCycling]

The XBox is a first generation console competing in very dangerous waters (i.e. going against Nintendo and the behemoth in gaming that Sony has become). The XBox has done relatively well, but in terms of graphics capabilities I think the average gamer will be hard pressed to find a terribly large difference between the quality of XBox and XBox2 graphics. This isn't like the difference between PS1 and PS2. The difference there was so stark and the years between the systems so great that even if Sony had NOT been backwards compatible I'm confident they would have dominated based purely on getting their first, having the titles, and having the best graphics (at the time). Right now, in terms of graphics, Microsoft has a lead. However, it's a lead that won't grow much with XBox2 if at all.

What's the point of all this? This point of all this is that the leap from PS1 to PS2 was so great that I could see people making that jump even with out backwards compatibility. The leap from XBox to XBox2 isn't going to be that great to the average gamer. Therefore, how many kids or adults with XBoxes are honestly going to look at games like KOTOR, Madden, etc. and say to themselves that the current XBox just isn't cutting it and that they NEED an XBox2? I know I won't. I don't know who will.

Oh look, there are a few more polygons, time to upgrade. I don't think so. The XBox as it currently stands now is great. So unless they plan on maintaining two systems, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot big time. I don't think the desire to upgrade will be THAT great.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[johnnyb]

PPC is just much better overall. Better instruction set, lower power consumption, less heat, smaller die size, etc. When you get into game consoles you realize just how much x86 sucks.

X1, X2

[shut_up_man]

I understand the technical reasons why Microsoft are in this situation - they changed the CPU, the system architecture and the video card architecture. The problem is, consumers don't give a crap about any of that stuff. They care about playing good fun games, and price.

The Xbox 2 will launch with one or two good games, and a small bunch of other below-average games. At this stage, with backward compatibility, X1 users would sell their X1 to get some cash, and buy an X2. They could play the one good new game, and all their old X1 games. Without backward compatibility... well, most X1 owners of reasonable means and intelligence stick to playing their X1.

As X2 development continues, X1 games drop in price, which is another reason for current X1 owners to not buy an X2.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[-noefordeg-]

Don't underestimate the power of backward compatibility....

Tekken, Rayman, Final Fantasy, and a some other titles are still frequently used in my PS-2.

"Backward compatibility only helps you get people when the console is new."
-No. Not 'only'. It also helps when the developer creates the SAME game for the new console. With maybe a few more lens flares. Well. Lens flares have never made a game good and seldom better.

If what you say should be true we would have to relay on the developers to release the same games over and over or almost the same games, just a bit better, AND we would have to be stupid enough to buy them over and over.

I see it as more or less having to replace me CD collection every 4-5 years. Which is just no-no.

It's been this way with Windows and Office too, but lately it seems like it is going to stop. Or.. Maybe MS will add some lens flares to the Office Helper :p

Market Interest...

[Observador]

... in backward compatibility (ie: the technical side) isn't the real issue here.

Gamers recurring to old games instead of new games, is! (ie: buying power)

Let me explain, up until very recently my ps1 game collection was bigger than all other current generation collections together (ps2,gc,pc). I bought my last ps1 game a scant 3 months ago... yup, at the bargain bin! I wonder how many games I 've let pass thinking that a ps1 $10 buck game would be a wiser choice... and by the time I finish taht ps1 game maybe the ps2 game will reach the bargain bin too...

What microsft doesnt want is gamers going through the bargain bin of Halo... err I mean Xbox games instead of buying NEW (read full price) games...

What they are saying to me essentially is this: "Buy the X-Box and it's games now, or you won't have another chance to play those games."

I hope I made some sense... and I have decided that the living room will reamin X-Box free...

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, ergonomics is not about easy to use, or even useful... (think MS ergonomic keyboards)

irrelevant whether old games are played or not

[jeff munkyfaces]

it's whether the user thinks they're going to play them that matters.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[dnoyeb]

According to a source close to the project, internal Microsoft figures suggest that only 10 per cent of PlayStation 2 purchasers were interested in the console's ability to play titles developed for the original PlayStation.

I bet they asked people who already owned the system. Of course there not interested because its there...Lets see how they react when you offer to take it away.

I think this is one of those surveys whose wording can sway the target audience.

Shooting themselves in the foot here

[domodude]

Go ask any Xbox fan to name off their top 5 Xbox games. Almost everybody will name Halo. Halo came out in 2001 and people still play it very frequently in 2004. Halo 2 will probably be more popular than Halo. If one of the biggest games for the Xbox (for many, the only selling point) will not work on the Xbox:Next, what reason do people have to purchase another system? This lack of compatability will end up hurting both the Xbox:Next and Halo 2.

Re:Amazing

[HAKdragon]

That doesn't seem too suprising as the NT kernel was designed to be portable. There were versions of NT that were available on a variaty of different architectures, including PPC.

Best $20 ever

[Psymunn]

Having never owned a PS1, i was over joyed to find FF7 for $20 down at the local EB
Backward compatability is awesome beacuse, quite frankly, with my NES, SNES, n64, and PS2, i am running out of space and outlets around my tv
And some people might say 'ditch the old systems' but I can tell you that, on more then one occasion, my buddies and i have consumed a case of beer and a friday evening reveling in the glory of blades of steel and no newfangledshinyassxbox2 is going to convince me that it isn't an awesome game

Game's Shelf-Life

[doctor_no]

There's a reason why we see PS1 games still on the shelfs at stores like Bestbuy, while we don't see Dreamcast, Saturn, etc. There are a legion of casual gamers out there that are happy with PS1 games. PS2 backwards compability increased the shlef-life of PS1 games immensely, just the same way PS3 should increase the shelflife of PS2 games. That benefits both the developer and consumer.

Personally, when I have to decide to buy a cross-platform game that is on all three systems, I always choose the PS2 even though the XB or GC may have better graphics. The reason is quite simple, that's because I know that if I invest in this game that I will be able to play it 5+ years later on the PS3(maybe even PS4).

Having backwards compatibiliy may not help the Xbox Next immensly, however it should be incredibily important to the original Xbox's games. There are so many people that still buy and play Halo, and Halo2 will only be out ~1year before the XB Next is out and I'm sure ppl will continue to play that game for years to come. But perhaps to MS, XB games won't be very important, nor worth the investment, when XB Next comes out.

Re:No *you're* wrong

[The-Bus]

Not really. If you walked into a store, people didn't ask for an "Entertainment System" or a "64" -- it was always a "Nintendo" -- then you were asked "What kind?"

With Microsoft having established itself as a brand known for mostly klutzy operating systems and applications, or more broadly, software, the Xbox can't use (and probably doesn't want to use) the Microsoft name too heavily. There's a reason it wasn't called "Windows Box with Games!". With Sony, you have to give the product some name since they have so many thousands.

I'm not saying it's a good or a bad idea that it's not backwards compatible - I AM saying that naming it Xbox2 or Next or whatever is sensible from a marketing point of view, regardless of compatibility.

Guests and broken PS1 systems

[tepples]

First of all as the parent thread states if you OWN gen1 games you probably own a gen1 consol.

Not if guests come over. My aunt, whose family had replaced a broken PS1 with a PS2, can hold dance parties only because I have DDR Konamix (for PS1) and a pair of dance pads.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[PixelSlut]

The cpu wouldn't cost that much more, but any amount is a lot in this field. When Xbox came out, they were pretty much selling them at cost in order to compete. So even an extra $40 is a pretty large amount.

They would also need to come up with some crazy new motherboard component that can deal with both x86 and PPC hardware, and switch between them.

They would also have to develop the operating system and hardware drivers for both CPUs. They obviously already have it developed for PPC, and they have whatever iteration of the OS Xbox used developed for x86. But, still.. that would be a major task to sync them together and fully test it for both CPUs.

Other consoles

[hsa]

I use my PS2 only for Final Fantasy series. All other games are inferior in graphics to XBOX. Believe, I have FFVII,FFTactics, running on my XBOX, but the gameplay sucks so bad, I really had to go buy PS2. I did love Tekken and GT3, but they are old now. Final Fantasy never gets old.

I also have Gamecube.For Gamecube I buy family and party games. (exception: Zelda WW, and Eternal Darkness). Note that, Gamecube has no previous version, yet the most popular games (Mario Party 5, for example) have Mario and all the other Nintendo Characters. What characters and/or trademark games does XBOX have? I can think of only HALO, and I really think that now (not when HALO came out) there are better games around..

XBOX is by far the best console in the market. Not the XBOX you see on the store, but the XBOX you create yourself. You put in modchip and a bigger hard-drive and you are ready to go. I only have couple of pure XBOX-games, but it plays games from NES, SNES,PLAYSTATION and other consoles. Besides, you can get port of Quake, Doom and stuff if you have the original media.

XBOX world is filled with movies, emulators and old good games, and XBOX-games aren't bad either =) . But this is all something, Microsoft is about to drop in their next-gen console.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Rick the Red]

why would they make such a big change in the architecture

To make it cheaper to produce. The Xbox1 is a PC with game console-like feature. The Xbox2 will be a game console with PC-like features. Microsoft is losing money on every Xbox they sell; Sony is making money on every PS2 they sell, even with the recent price cut.

I'm switching camps...

[i-Chaos]

I am an XBox owner, who loves his xbox to death due to the many applications of the xbox. I was fully prepared to buy an XBox 2 until I heard first that it would run on apple, then that a HDD would not be in it, and then that the XBox will not be backwards compatible. Due to the fact that the Play Station 3 will probably be backwards compatible, I will probably buy one of those, since it will allow me access to a huge library of PS2 games that I've missed by being an XBox owner.

Microsoft is really shooting themselves in the foot with this one. Anyone see a pattern with their new console launches?